0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The main point I was making is that they haven't finalized the collections yet and nonexclusive content that rivals exclusive content will be moved to more expensive collections.
Quote from: ShadySue on June 27, 2013, 18:35So, when they changed the collections, why did they put a Value Bin placeholder? Most recently it was called the Value Collection, and previously it was the Dollar Bin, so it wasn't just accidentally held over, as it has been renamed 'Value Bin'. Also with typical iS logic, it comes after Vetta on a rising price point of collections. Just another inexplicable "typo"?I don't have any Value Bin files and that option isn't available for me. I would guess that it will be changed but maybe not, what's it hurting?
So, when they changed the collections, why did they put a Value Bin placeholder? Most recently it was called the Value Collection, and previously it was the Dollar Bin, so it wasn't just accidentally held over, as it has been renamed 'Value Bin'. Also with typical iS logic, it comes after Vetta on a rising price point of collections. Just another inexplicable "typo"?
Wonder if they are going to adjust our RC goals? Nice, we get lower commission and then get bumped down to a lower percent tier next year when the higher priced RC ceiling is used to calculate our pitiful little sales. And like all the sites who promise volume do they ever come through? Not only no, but FK no. Haven't heard IS come out and say that yet, but they will.
Quote from: ShadySue on June 27, 2013, 18:38Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 18:27The main point I was making is that they haven't finalized the collections yet and nonexclusive content that rivals exclusive content will be moved to more expensive collections. I, and plenty of other people, have similars and sisters across three for sure, maybe even four, collections within my own port, which won't be moved unless Lobo is wrong that they won't entertain appeals about collection placement.Maybe that's a good argument against/for having a portfolio full of similars?
Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 18:27The main point I was making is that they haven't finalized the collections yet and nonexclusive content that rivals exclusive content will be moved to more expensive collections. I, and plenty of other people, have similars and sisters across three for sure, maybe even four, collections within my own port, which won't be moved unless Lobo is wrong that they won't entertain appeals about collection placement.
5) is heavily favoring exclusive content
You can nitpick about the specifics, but there are millions (literally) of examples of insane price discrepancies:http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-24281976-pregnant-woman-eating-salad.php?st=13bb83dhttp://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-20364391-pregnant-woman-eating-salad.php?st=13bb83dGiven the ingestion of wretched crap into Vetta, they clearly are incapable of making any sort of quality judgment as they flood the site with Getty cast-offs at premium prices (and I can give you lots more examples of that too if you like, but just look at Clerkenwell Images sorted by file age; start with this gem http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25410396-two-telephone-cords-intertwined.php?st=89e662f)
Independents see a drop of RPD, but on another side, they do not have ANY upload limit anymore.
You weren't talking about royalties, you said the cheapest license. But if now you want to talk about the lowest paying royalties per license then look at the sub sites, some pay as low as 21 cents to license a full sized image.